Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant in Government High School, Theerthamalai, Dharmapuri District. Before his appointment as B.T. Assistant, he served as Junior Assistant in the Education Department from 9.9.1977. 2. He passed M.Ed. Degree, for which, he was granted incentive increment on 5.1.1988. This increment was before the pay revision pursuant to the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission with effect from 1.6.1988. 3. The petitioner passed M.A. Degree, for which, he was granted incentive increment on 13.7.1992. Thereafter, the pay was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 pursuant to the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission. 4. One Thiru M.Govindaraju was appointed as B.T.Assistant on 19.11.1982. Admittedly, he was a junior to the petitioner. Furthermore, while the petitioner obtained two incentive increments before pay revision on 1.1.1996, Thiru.M.Govindaraju obtained one incentive increment after 1.1.1996, as he passed M.A. Degree. This incentive increment put him in an advantageous position and he received more pay. Though Thiru.M.Govindaraju was junior, he was paid more pay. As stated above, Thiru.M.Govindaraju was given only one increment while the petitioner was given two increments. But, still the petitioner was in receipt of less pay. The petitioner sought to rectify the said anomaly. 5. But, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 10.4.2000 refusing to set-right the pay of the petitioner on par with Thiru.M.Govindaraju. The reason given in the impugned order is that while the petitioner was not a direct recruit as B.T.Assistant, Thiru.M.Govindaraju was direct recruit to the post of B.T.Assistant and therefore the petitioner should not compare himself with Thiru.M.Govindaraju. A consequential order dated 10.5.2000 was passed by the second respondent. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The impugned order 10.4.2000 is a very short order and the same is extracted hereunder: "TAMIL" 8. I am not able to appreciate the reasons given in the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner became B.T.Assistant on 10.12.1980 before Thiru.M.Govindaraju became B.T.Assistant on 19.11.1982. Though he was not a direct recruit, that could not put him in a disadvantageous position. From 10.12.1980 onwards, the petitioner was a B.T.Assistant. Therefore, the first respondent is not correct in refusing to bring the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner became B.T.Assistant on 10.12.1980 before Thiru.M.Govindaraju became B.T.Assistant on 19.11.1982. Though he was not a direct recruit, that could not put him in a disadvantageous position. From 10.12.1980 onwards, the petitioner was a B.T.Assistant. Therefore, the first respondent is not correct in refusing to bring the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior. 9. The impugned order of the first respondent is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same is also violative of principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to bring the pay of the petitioner on par with his junior M.Govindaraju, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order 11. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.